I was a second-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in 1978, and I had the immense good fortune to work with Sankey Williams, MD, and John Eisenberg, MD. They were performing a trial to evaluate the influence of education on reducing house staff use of unnecessary inpatient laboratory testing.1 The educational intervention had no benefit on house staff ordering behavior, but it had resounding effects on how I came to view routine use of many different types of testing and treatments that I had previously assumed were evidence based. That early research experience led me to carefully question the evidence base for many commonly used tests and procedures: How will the information from this test help me to take better care of my patient? Will it lead to better outcomes? Could I have gotten there without the use of this test?
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Redberg RF. The Persistent Problem of Overuse of Diagnostic Testing Among House Staff—Time to Move Forward. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1721. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3503
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: